1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 18, 2012 to April 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a Cves male with the nationality of Sri Lanka from the end of 2011, who works at the Defendant’s workplace from the end of 2011, and the Defendant is a person who runs metal processing business, etc. with the trade name of E in Asia

B. On May 18, 2012, while conducting presses work around 10:00, the Plaintiff was involved in an accident where the right hand hand kids down between the kg’s kg’s kg’s kg’s kg’s kg’s k’s k’s k’s k’s

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The plaintiff suffered from the injury to the upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper upper half of the accident in this case, and was engaged in non-cerebral static and a metal-resistant strawing, and thereafter, the plaintiff removed metals due to the fluoration of the aggregate, and the treatment of human damage is terminated.

As a result of the plaintiff's physical appraisal, the degree of loss of labor ability as an agricultural or urban worker by the right hand in the upper part of the lecture is 4.9% for two years from the date of the accident in this case.

E. The Plaintiff received KRW 8,337,830, medical care benefits 2,944,150, and disability benefits 11,050,130, a sum of KRW 22,332,110, from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the result of the commission to the chief of the Central University Hospital of this Court for physical appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving a physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages inflicted on an employee by violating such duty.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082, Feb. 23, 1999). According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an employer of the Plaintiff, is an employer of multiple workers at the same place.